[open-science] Possibly interesting for this list: see item 3 in particular

[Pierre-Carl Langlais]

Well, I "get" them: that's a pure marketing strategy, modeled in the 
same logic as energy multinational corporation embracing touching 
ecologic narratives. Openly harming the knowledge commons is certainly 
bad publicity nowadays; converting to an uncompromising open-access 
model is certainly incompatible with their sky-high margins. What 
remains is an hypocritical stance : some nice OA hocus pocus for the 
eyes (and the media), and keeping the usual business the usual way in 
the backyard. Besides, my country (France) is on the verge of signing 
<http://scoms.hypotheses.org/136> a 190 millions euros five-year deal 
with Elsevier, while public research funds are going in the red 
<http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2014/10/17/le-gouvernement-reste-ferme-face-aux-chercheurs-en-colere_4508043_3224.html> 
and most would-be researchers of my generation are unlikely to find an 
academic job. I would require a lot of OA hocus pocus to forget this 
reality.

Pierre-Carl

Le 21/10/14 23:49, Mr. Puneet Kishor a écrit :
> Yeah, to kinda echo PMR, I don't really get Elsevier. They continue to 
> do dick-y things and, as a result, continue to be everyone's favorite 
> whipping boy, but they also continue to participate in the open 
> community. I mean, not that anyone should be excluded, but what is 
> their deal? For example, in the TDM area, they have concurrently 
> created hurdles and tried to solve them ham-handedly. If someone has 
> insights into Elsevier's motives and strategy, please explain.
>
> --
> Puneet Kishor
>
>
> On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:14 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk 
> <mailto:pm286 at cam.ac.uk>> wrote:
>
>> Is all the data in this challenge Open by the Open Definition? 
>> (CC-BY/CC0)
>> Is all the software OSI-compliant?
>> Are all the entries fully Open?
>> Are all the results fully Open?
>> Is the process of judging Open?
>>
>> If not, I would doubt this is appropriate for an Open list. There 
>> sees to be no benefit for the Open community and no promotion of the 
>> Open ideal.
>>
>> P.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:11 PM, William Gunn <william.gunn at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:william.gunn at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Elsevier are doing a Grand Challenges in Research Data
>>     competition. Here's how they describe it:
>>     "The goal is to pick one or more open problems and, then, invite
>>     research and industry teams out of there to compete and provide
>>     solutions that improve a given baseline. Those kind of
>>     competitions are common in the industry (e.g. Netflix
>>     <http://www.netflixprize.com/>) and are not new to Elsevier
>>     <http://www.elseviergrandchallenge.com/> either."
>>
>>     Vote for the problem you'd like to see focus on here:
>>
>>     https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/75PY2QT
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     William Gunn
>>     +1 (650) 614-1749 <tel:%2B1%20%28650%29%20614-1749>
>>     http://synthesis.williamgunn.org/about/
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     open-science mailing list
>>     open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>>     https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>>     Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-science mailing list
>> open-science at lists.okfn.org <mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20141022/652cd532/attachment-0003.html>